I'm running version 5.0.22-community-nt of MySQL. For some reason, InnoDB
is disabled. I have it installed on my XP Pro machine, and it's working
fine, and one on a Windows 2003 server, which is working fine, and another
on a Windows 2003 server, which is the one with a problem.
At one
:22 PM
Subject: InnoDB Disabled?
I'm running version 5.0.22-community-nt of MySQL. For some reason, InnoDB
is disabled. I have it installed on my XP Pro machine, and it's working
fine, and one on a Windows 2003 server, which is working fine, and another
on a Windows 2003 server, which
Hi !
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:39:21PM -0500, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
Interesting... guess the intent was a disconnect that would break code
trying to work on MySQL, regardless of engine selected. That decision
makes it two products, MySQL/MyISAM and MySQL/InnoDB
Folks,
Thanks for all the help. Not only is the code working, but my
understanding of the issue has improved, thanks to this list.
...Ken
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Folks,
Here's an interesting problem for you. I found a problem that did not
make any sense, and in diagnosing the problem I found an issue with
InnoDB vs MyISAM, so I wrote a short script to test it. The test case
is a simple Open, Insert, Close series repeated 5 times with both
engines
Hi Kenneth -
it appears that you need to use an explicit 'commit' command when using
InnoDB tables and Python.
Something like this:
try:
cursor.execute(INSERT INTO Test1 (s1, i1) VALUES ('Now is the
time', 5))
db.commit()
Found this on http://www.serpia.org/mysql
Thanks for the tip, that worked.
Sounds like InnoDB is still borked though. You should not have to use a
commit unless you have started a transaction, as I understand it. The
semantics for non-transaction access should be identical.
...Ken
Dan Buettner wrote:
Hi Kenneth -
it appears
Kenneth Loafman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like InnoDB is still borked though. You should not have to use a
commit unless you have started a transaction, as I understand it. The
semantics for non-transaction access should be identical.
Are you explicitly telling Python not to use
Ofer Inbar wrote:
Kenneth Loafman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like InnoDB is still borked though. You should not have to use a
commit unless you have started a transaction, as I understand it. The
semantics for non-transaction access should be identical.
Are you explicitly telling
-python-1.2.2/doc/FAQ.txt says:
| Starting with 1.2.0, MySQLdb disables autocommit by default, as
| required by the DB-API standard (PEP-249). If you are using InnoDB
| tables or some other type of transactional table type, you'll need
| to do connection.commit() before closing the connection, or else
.
The MySQL-python-1.2.2/doc/FAQ.txt says:
| Starting with 1.2.0, MySQLdb disables autocommit by default, as
| required by the DB-API standard (PEP-249). If you are using InnoDB
| tables or some other type of transactional table type, you'll need
| to do connection.commit() before closing
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:39:21PM -0500, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
Interesting... guess the intent was a disconnect that would break code
trying to work on MySQL, regardless of engine selected. That decision
makes it two products, MySQL/MyISAM and MySQL/InnoDB with different
semantics. Yes
Hi Waldo, all!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm making an assessment of MySQL possible official adoption in my company.
A question I have is: with InnoDB codebase being owned by Oracle, is there
any impact to its reliability and support? Any other issues?
The developers of InnoDB have never
I'm making an assessment of MySQL possible official adoption in my company.
A question I have is: with InnoDB codebase being owned by Oracle, is there
any impact to its reliability and support? Any other issues?
Waldo Tumanut
Database Analyst
Baron-
Thank you for the InnoDB Lock Monitor pointer. I now have a greate deal
of informaiton to digest. I will try innotop when I have a chance.
:)
-Paul
Hi Paul,
Power, Paul C. wrote:
I have an INSERT waiting for a table lock, and i do not
understand why.
---TRANSACTION 0
I have an INSERT waiting for a table lock, and i do not understand why.
---TRANSACTION 0 308691, ACTIVE 5 sec, process no 8876, OS thread id
1296547864 inserting
mysql tables in use 1, locked 1
LOCK WAIT 1 lock struct(s), heap size 320
MySQL thread id 79126, query id 1113322 bil.oneeighty.com
LOCK, not a record lock.
I'm not sure what level that happens at (MySQL server, or InnoDB storage engine).
If it's an InnoDB lock, you can use the InnoDB Lock Monitor as described in the
manual (short version: issue CREATE TABLE innodb_lock_monitor(a int)
ENGINE=InnoDB). It prints to your
, but in this case went on for over 30
minutes. During this, the application was responding correctly to other
users. After a reboot, InnoDB has been disabled, which left the data
inaccessible. The database was restored using the most recent backup,
but all tables are now using the MyISAM
is the default storage engine, I suspect.
Also take a look at the last paragraph of this page:
For information on tuning the InnoDB storage engine, see Section
14.2.11, “InnoDB Performance Tuning Tips”.
Does this option only affect MyISAM performance, or does it also affect
performance, or does it also affect
performance of operations on InnoDB tables?
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
I am looking after the installation of web-based software built using
MySQL with mostly InnoDB tables. The software is currently installed in
over 10 locations and has been running continually for several months in
some of these. These installations vary from several thousand
, InnoDB has been disabled, which left the data
inaccessible. The database was restored using the most recent backup,
but all tables are now using the MyISAM engine.
[...]
The errors are due to InnoDB being disabled. As far as I can tell, this
has happened as the InnoDB log file ib_logfile0
Depending on the version you use MySQL will see a definition of
varchar(25) as 25 bytes or 25 characters. I believe this changed from
4.1 to 5.0 respectively but I am not sure.
THis could be the root of the problem
Boyd
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email attached documents may
In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daevid Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because we're a huge enterprise product, with 3 databases of 200
tables each.
We are migrating from MYISM to INNODB and keeping track of that value
isn't something we thought we'd need to do. Plus it seems like
something we
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Dobrzanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:46 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the InnoDB count() match table status?
MyISAM and InnoDB (and there are plenty more). RDBMS is not an Office
spreadsheet
On 3/27/07, Tim Lucia wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Dobrzanski
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:46 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the InnoDB count() match table status?
MyISAM and InnoDB (and there are plenty more). RDBMS is not an Office
On 3/26/07, Anil D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Varchar = 0 bytes
I don't think this is right, see below.
Charset used: UTF8
UTF8 means that some characters may be two bytes, see below.
Note: When consider even the size Varchar(m) = m+1 bytes, the size of row
has reached 35,000 bytes.
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables don't store a
total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers different? I could
easily parse out the second query which is REDICULOUSLY faster. BTW, why
doesn't mySQL just 'alias' the first query behind the scenes for us and
parse
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables don't store a
total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers different? I could
easily parse out the second query which is REDICULOUSLY faster. BTW, why
doesn't mySQL just
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables
don't store a
total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers
different? I could
easily parse out the second query which is REDICULOUSLY
faster. BTW, why
doesn't
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables don't
store a total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers
different? I could easily parse out the second query
Daevid Vincent wrote:
Is mySQL planning on fixing this BUG. YES -- it is a BUG. A BIG FAT HARRY
ONE.
I think you mean 'hairy', not 'harry'. There are no 'harry' bugs, apart
from that British fool who's in line for the throne.
It's completely stupid that I can't query and get an
from MYISM to INNODB and keeping track of that value isn't
something we thought we'd need to do. Plus it seems like something we
_shouldn't_ have to do. That's WHY we use a database.
A deviation of 40-50% is SIGNIFICANT!
You might as well just use RAND() at that point.
Fine. Use rand
You're about 5 years too late for this converation, but I recall it
Really? People have just happily accepted this absurd limitation for _five_
years? Wow.
having to do with the fact that when you're on a table that supports
transactions, you don't know exactly how many records a particular
On Mon, March 26, 2007 16:21, Daevid Vincent said:
You're about 5 years too late for this converation, but I recall it
Really? People have just happily accepted this absurd limitation for
_five_
years? Wow.
having to do with the fact that when you're on a table that supports
transactions,
Hi Daevid,
Ugh. How about not going berserk on the public mailing list?
We can understand that you're upset that you didn't read the manual
before starting a MyISAM to InnoDB conversion. You didn't do your
research and now you're being hit by a very simple (and not really all
Recently, I got the following error. I found the solution to solve
the problem by increasing the log file size. However, I want to know
why this error will happen. I can't find the explanation for that
error. Anyone can give me some information about the error?
070321 16:38:41 InnoDB
On 3/11/07, Jean-Sebastien Pilon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running a mysql database server and we experienced a power failure.
The mysql server does not want to restart because innodb is corrupted.
Version info:
Mysql version 4.1.11-Debian_4sarge7-log
Debian sarge
Reiserfs filesystem
What
Hello,
I am running a mysql database server and we experienced a power failure.
The mysql server does not want to restart because innodb is corrupted.
Version info:
Mysql version 4.1.11-Debian_4sarge7-log
Debian sarge
Reiserfs filesystem
What I have tried:
- Ran reiserfsck to fix corrupted
Mysql 5.0.33 on FreeBSD 6.2 amd64 platform.
Using stock my-innodb-heavy-4G.cnf, with just the following changes
max_connections = 250
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 8G
innodb_log_file_size = 1024M
innodb_data_file_path =
/var/db/mysql/tblgrp1/ibdata1:4096M;/var/db/mysql/tblgrp1/ibdata2:4096M;/var/db
Hi,
Michael Fernández M. wrote:
2 CPU Pentium III 700 Mhz Aprox.
4 GB RAM.
Redhat 7.2
Mysql version: 4.0.14-standard-log
Kernel: Kernel 2.4.18-17.7 (highmem)
It is possible that mysqld could use up to key_buffer_size +
(read_buffer_size + sort_buffer_size)*max_connections = 3666809 K bytes
of
-Sebastien Pilon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:53 PM
To: Nils Meyer; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Growing innodb size
+---++
| Variable_name | Value
, February 21, 2007 12:53 PM
To: Nils Meyer; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Growing innodb size
+---++
| Variable_name | Value |
+---++
| innodb_data_file_path | ibdata1:10M:autoextend
,
but i did not found a possible cause to this.
Please, if someone have and idea it would be great!
Michael.-
070222 23:46:36 InnoDB: Assertion failure in thread 94232 in file
mem0pool.c line 493
InnoDB: Failing assertion: 0
Hi,
Can I pre-create innodb tablespace using something like dd (or any other
better tool)?
I have a server that is getting low on innodb table space and I want to add
15GB or so, but I want to minimize downtime. The server is a bit slow and I
estimate it will take around 10-20 minutes or so. I
Gary Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I pre-create innodb tablespace using something like dd (or any other
better tool)?
I'm afraid it can't be done that way, because fresh datafile is not simply
an empty file filled with zeros. You should be able
Hello list,
I would like to grow my innodb table space, the only problem that I have
is that I did not declare any size in the config file since we were not
using it to start with. If I modify the config file, will this override
the current innodb file or will it grow it ? Or should dump all
Hi,
Jean-Sebastien Pilon wrote:
I would like to grow my innodb table space, the only problem that I have
is that I did not declare any size in the config file since we were not
using it to start with. If I modify the config file, will this override
the current innodb file or will it grow
/|
+---++
There is one defined, since I have innodb tables in there, very small
ones. But the one I need know will grow easily to 5GB of data and will
archive rows that are 30+ days old once every week.
Since I am not running out of space on the machine, I though I could
give 10GB to the datafile
Hi,
I want to copy paste the data files of Innodb database, is it possible, i
mean can i just copy the data files like that we do for myisam tables,
Thanks,
Abhishek jain
On 2007-02-19 abhishek jain wrote:
I want to copy paste the data files of Innodb database, is it possible, i
mean can i just copy the data files like that we do for myisam tables
If you mean for a daily backup while the server is running: No!
You often end up with corrupted tables doing
talked about (10 * 100MB) are still
used by InnoDB for transactions and foreign keys reference (at least
these two things)...
Although I don't get why would you use 10 files of 100MB... why not 20
of 50MB... unless they are on different disks and partitions... I
don't understand...
I would personally
that you talked about (10 * 100MB) are still
used by InnoDB for transactions and foreign keys reference (at least
these two things)...
Although I don't get why would you use 10 files of 100MB... why not 20
of 50MB... unless they are on different disks and partitions... I
don't understand...
I would
I'm working on migrating an bunch of MyISAM tables over to InnoDB. For
development we want to use a fixed amount of space. So I have specified
10 100MB files in my.cnf. I started replicating data over but what I
can't tell is how much space I have left. Running show innodb status\G
shows a lot
-Original Message-
From: Gary W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:01 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: InnoDB fixed file size, how much is left?
I'm working on migrating an bunch of MyISAM tables over to InnoDB.
For
development we want
Hello,
I am trying to update two fields of a table that are a composed foreign
key to another table. These fields cant be updated with this kind of
warning:
Warning | 1292 | Truncated incorrect DOUBLE value: 'A05'
Both tables are InnoDB and I have tried with all types of constraints,
ON UPDATE
be updated with this kind of
warning:
Warning | 1292 | Truncated incorrect DOUBLE value: 'A05'
Both tables are InnoDB and I have tried with all types of constraints,
ON UPDATE CASCADE, SET NULL and NO ACTION, as foreign key constraints of
the table that I want to update.
Any help or idea of how
Fortunately I have solved this problem. I think it was something about
being a two field composed foreign key and updating these two fields at
the same time gave some kind of error.
I solve it by adding a temporary row in the referenced table with one of
the fields already changed and then
Marten Lehmann wrote:
How can I check which tables are using innodb with sql? How can walk through
the tables with show databases and show tables. Thanks.
This somewhat depends on how the tables were declared. If you used
ENGINE=InnoDb; in the CREATE TABLE sequence, you'd be able to loop
There is a more robust way if you running MySQL 5
Export this query using mysql client to an SQL script like this
mysql -h... -u... -p... --skip-column-names -A -eSELECT CONCAT('OPTIMIZE
TABLE ',table_schema,'.',table_name,';') FROM information_schema.tables WHERE
ENGINE='InnoDB'
Then run
Hello,
mysql was such a reliable and unbreakable database until innodb showed up. All
the time I had problems with mysql it was related to innodb. Today again:
InnoDB: Starting crash recovery.
InnoDB: Reading tablespace information from the .ibd files...
070206 09:29:19 mysqld ended
, I've heard people
still use
it in production environments.
--
Chris,
Falcon doesn't currently support RI. And like Innodb, it requires
its own table space so it too may get fragmented.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/falcon/en/se-falcon-createdb.html and will
likely require packing (sweeping
Hi,
I am experiencing deadlocks using InnoDB row level locking. I would
like to prevent these deadlocks by accessing the rows in the
affected table in a fixed order, as suggested in the MySQL manual
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-deadlocks.html.
Unfortunately, I could not find
- Original Message -
From: Vitaliy Okulov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: low-priority-updates and innodb tables
Здравствуйте, mysql.
Hi all.
I want to ask about low-priority-updates and innodb tables. Does
low-priority-updates=1
Hi All
I know the innodb vs myisam issue comes up quite frequently. I went through
old threads and could not find an answer to my questions.
Generally, is there any reason/scenario not to use innodb?
From a feature perspective, I do not need full text indices, foreign keys
are usefull
Size is an issue with InnoDB and deleting records does not reduce the size of the file. In my experience, the performance drop off
is considerable once the table reaches a certain size. And it's not a slight drop off over time.
If your table is going to get very large, I would reccommend using
On Friday 26 January 2007 06:17, Olaf Stein wrote:
From a feature perspective, I do not need full text indices,
This is about the only reason I've seen MyISAM promoted as table engine of
choice.
I know this is a very general question but it seems not to make any sense
not to use innodb
Another thing to consider is:
heh, silly mail client :). Another thing to consider is this:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/falcon/en/index.html
Though it's Not recommended for production use, I've heard people still use
it in production environments.
--
Chris White
PHP Programmer
Interfuel
--
Hi Olaf,
I know the innodb vs myisam issue comes up quite frequently. I went
through
old threads and could not find an answer to my questions.
Generally, is there any reason/scenario not to use innodb?
From a feature perspective, I do not need full text indices, foreign keys
are usefull
,
Falcon doesn't currently support RI. And like Innodb, it requires
its own table space so it too may get fragmented.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/falcon/en/se-falcon-createdb.html and will likely
require packing (sweeping?) from time to time. It would be nice to see some
benchmarks compared
I'm trying to fix a problem with a users innodb database (mysql 5.0).When they try a
very simple insert they get ERROR 1030 (HY000): Got error -1 from storage
engine I have dumped and reloaded the tables but the problem persists. CHECK
TABLE does not indicate an error.
I stopped
Здравствуйте, mysql.
Hi all.
I want to ask about low-priority-updates and innodb tables. Does
low-priority-updates=1 affect on priority of select or update query on
innodb type tables?
--
С уважением,
Vitaliy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
Jason,
I assume that your principal databases are INNODB databases.
Regards
On 1/17/07, Jason J. W. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan,
Just wanted to touchbase and see if you had any suggestions based on
the my.cnf and machine config. Thank you in advance.
Best Regards,
Jason
Please post to the list not to me personnally.
Original Message
Subject: RE: [PART 2/2] InnoDB - Different EXPLAINs for same query From:
John Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:Thu, January 18, 2007 10:24
To: William R. Mussatto
with this strange behavior.
Thanks,
John A.
-Original Message-
From: William R. Mussatto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 5:17 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: [PART 2/2] InnoDB - Different EXPLAINs for same query
Just a thought, did you try running
Greetings,
It seems the lists.mysql.com imposes a 50KB limit on messages, so this
message will be sent in two parts. Thanks for your patience.
I'm in the process of converting most of my databases from MyISAM to
InnoDB, and I've come across the most peculiar problem. It seems that
after
query_cache_size=32M
query_cache_type=1
record_buffer=512
sort_buffer=512M
table_cache=512
thread_cache=4M
thread_stack=512K
thread_cache_size=300
thread_concurrency=16
tmp_table_size=1G
#innodb
innodb-table-locks=off
transaction_isolation=REPEATABLE-READ
innodb_buffer_pool_size=1024M
=1024M
myisam_sort_buffer_size=256M
read_buffer_size=64M
read_buffer=64M
query_cache_size=32M
query_cache_type=1
record_buffer=512
sort_buffer=512M
table_cache=512
thread_cache=4M
thread_stack=512K
thread_cache_size=300
thread_concurrency=16
tmp_table_size=1G
#innodb
read_buffer=64M
query_cache_size=32M
query_cache_type=1
record_buffer=512
sort_buffer=512M
table_cache=512
thread_cache=4M
thread_stack=512K
thread_cache_size=300
thread_concurrency=16
tmp_table_size=1G
#innodb
innodb-table-locks=off
transaction_isolation=REPEATABLE-READ
Hi Juan,
Just wanted to touchbase and see if you had any suggestions based on
the my.cnf and machine config. Thank you in advance.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/15/07, Juan Eduardo Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason,
Send me a my.cnf in order to view your configuration ( using innodb storage
Hello All,
I have an issue that is seemingly hard to troubleshoot. Every so often
transactions/queries on InnoDB tables will stack up such that all the
queries appear to be waiting for others to execute. The problem is
that the others never finish executing. If you try to kill the
Updating
Hi Juan,
Could the update log purging lagging behind due to a high UPDATE load
cause this behavior? I was reading up here:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-multi-versioning.html
If so, would using innodb_max_purge_lag help? Thank you again so much.
Best Regards,
Jason
--
MySQL
On Jan 7, 2007, at 4:23 PM, TK wrote:
In short, the original inventors of the GIF format (CompuServe,
1987) have always defined the pronunciation to be like JIF. So,
that has always been the correct pronunciation.
Sure, so I'll start pronouncing graphics as jraphics.
--
MySQL General
Subject: Re: [OT} How to pronounce GIF (was: Re: How to
pronounce MyISAM and InnoDB)
On Jan 7, 2007, at 4:23 PM, TK wrote:
In short, the original inventors of the GIF format (CompuServe,
1987) have always defined the pronunciation to be like JIF. So,
that has always been the correct
Hello,
Is it possible to extract transactional data from InnoDB log files?
InnoDB kept crashing and trying to insert the same record (replayed
from the log after the crash I assume). I'd like to try and extract
the record from log to reconstruct the query and try to break it again
in case
Jan,
In English I pronounce them as...
My-eye-sam
In-oh-dee-bee
...respectively.
Regards,
Phil
2007/1/7, js [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi list,
Sorry for this silly question but I've been always had trouble
pronouncing MyISAM and InnoDB.
How do you pronunce them?
Thanks in advance.
When
I'll bite..
Sorry for this silly question but I've been always had trouble
pronouncing MyISAM and InnoDB.
How do you pronunce them?
I pronounce MyISAM as give-me-foreign-keys and InnoDB as
curse-you-cryptic-foreign-key-errors
(currently running far and fast)
--
MySQL General Mailing List
Hi list,
Sorry for this silly question but I've been always had trouble
pronouncing MyISAM and InnoDB.
How do you pronunce them?
Thanks in advance.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just say
My, I, Sam and inno, d, b
Michael
-Original Message-
From: js [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 00:09:15
To:mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: How to pronounce MyISAM and InnoDB
Hi list,
Sorry for this silly question but I've been always had trouble
pronouncing
To:mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: How to pronounce MyISAM and InnoDB
Hi list,
Sorry for this silly question but I've been always had trouble
pronouncing MyISAM and InnoDB.
How do you pronunce them?
Thanks in advance.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
2007/1/7, js [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi list,
Sorry for this silly question but I've been always had trouble
pronouncing MyISAM and InnoDB.
How do you pronunce them?
Thanks in advance.
When I'm speaking Dutch (which is most of the time) I say
My-ee-sahm
Inno-day-bay
JP
--
MySQL General Mailing
MyISAM and InnoDB.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I have seen that by default some tables are created as InnoDB and some as
MyISAM.
I guess the table type is not chosen randomly. How is it chosen the table
engine used?
And is InnoDB recommended now?
Does it support full text indexes? Or if not, is there a way of using full
text
On 2007-01-04 Octavian Rasnita wrote:
I have seen that by default some tables are created as InnoDB and some as
MyISAM.
I guess the table type is not chosen randomly. How is it chosen the table
engine used?
You can set a global and IIRC a database specific default for the database
type
InnoDB supports foreign keys, MyISAM does not.
MyISAM supports full text indices, InnoDB does not.
This is unfortunate. It has kept me using MyISAM where I'd rather use
InnoDB, although fortunately none of my applications are really hampered by
it.
The only work-around I can think
And is InnoDB recommended now?
It depends.. :)
Depends on... what?
I mean, if I don't need transactions, is there another reason for using
InnoDB?
If it is necessary I can build the client program without foreign keys
support also.
Thanks.
Octavian
--
MySQL General Mailing List
Octavian,
1) You can use MyISAM for example when you use static information in a
webpage. For example, only for store information of customers, something
like that..
2) Innodb is a engine that support ACID, you can use for transactions. For
example, load information of sales from PDA ( field
tables and innodb for the high DML ones. in benchmark
tests (re: load/stability) I was able to sustain ~4,500 selects/sec against
this for eight hours without any problem. this on only a dual Opteron.
throw in a good (at least I like to think) replication implementation and
we've gone as high
At 08:38 AM 1/4/2007, you wrote:
Hi,
I have seen that by default some tables are created as InnoDB and some as
MyISAM.
I guess the table type is not chosen randomly. How is it chosen the table
engine used?
And is InnoDB recommended now?
If you need transactions or RI.
Does it support
mentioned, a fix from
InnoDB has been integrated into 5.30.
5.0.30 I meant.
Tweakers.net has already tested
this fix and it does show some improvement, but it still has a long
way to go: http://tweakers.net/reviews/661/6
Yes Innodb has a long ways to go and I'm wondering if it is
fixable so
901 - 1000 of 5209 matches
Mail list logo
